> You've got some apples to oranges here.
Undoubtedly... However, the "high-level" fact that we perform
much worse than an ext3-using Linux installation on identical
hardware remains, and I'm trying to see if there is some way we
can improve on the NetBSD performance.
I've not yet brought NFS into the picture, but interestingly,
yes, that is eventually what we're looking at in this context as
well. Your comments are noted.
> If you mount ext3 with -o sync,data=3Djournal, you'll find FFS faster=
.=
I'll get the exact ext3 parameters used tomorrow. Do you
indicate that this set of ext3 parameters make it more similar to
what FFS does? (Note, I've run with soft dependencies turned on.)
> FWIW, I don't use the namei cache at all with my file system,
> which uses hashed directories, and it outperforms FFS on large
> directories.
OK, that's good to know. If you don't mind me asking, which file
system is that, and what's the base OS? (I'm just curious, you
don't have to answer, of course.) Perhaps this also points in
the same general direction that the FreeBSD UFS_DIRHASH does?
Regards,
- H=E5vard